 | This articleneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Estates of the realm" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(September 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Theestates of the realm, orthree estates, were the broad orders ofsocial hierarchy used inChristendom from theMiddle Ages toearly modern Europe. Different systems for dividing society members intoestates developed and evolved over time.[1][2]
Today, the termsthree estates andestates of the realm may sometimes be re-interpreted to refer to the modernseparation of powers in government into thelegislature, administration, and the judiciary.[citation needed] The modern termthefourth estate invokes medieval three-estate systems, and usually refers to some particular force outside that medieval power structure, most commonly the independent press or themass media.[3][4]
During theMiddle Ages, advancing to different social classes was uncommon and difficult, and when it did happen, it generally took the form of a gradual increase in status over several generations of a family rather than within a single lifetime.
One field in which commoners could appreciably advance within a single lifetime was the Church. The medieval Church was an institution where social mobility was most likely achieved up to a certain level (generally to that ofvicar general orabbot/abbess for commoners). Typically, only nobility were appointed to the highest church positions (bishops, archbishops, heads of religious orders, etc.), although low nobility could aspire to the highest church positions. Since clergy could not marry, such mobility was theoretically limited to one generation.Nepotism was common in this period.
Johan Huizinga observed that "Medieval political speculation is imbued to the marrow with the idea of a structure of society based upon distinct orders".[5] The virtually synonymous termsestate andorder designated a great variety of social realities, not at all limited to a class, Huizinga concluded applying to every social function, every trade, every recognisable grouping.
There are, first of all, the estates of the realm, but there are also the trades, the state of matrimony and that of virginity, the state of sin. At court, there are the 'four estates of the body and mouth': bread-masters, cup-bearers, carvers, and cooks. In the Church, there are sacerdotal orders and monastic orders. Finally there are the different orders of chivalry.[5]
This static view of society was predicated on inherited positions. Commoners were universally considered the lowest order. The higher estates' necessary dependency on the commoners' production, however, often further divided the otherwise equal common people intoburghers (also known asbourgeoisie) of the realm's cities and towns, and thepeasants andserfs of the realm's surrounding lands and villages. A person's estate and position within it were usually inherited from the father and his occupation, similar to acaste withinthat system. In many regions and realms, there also existed population groups born outside these specifically defined resident estates.
The estates of the realm were not merely descriptive or informal divisions. The legal and political status of a person was strongly dependent on his estate. Medieval law was usually not codified or uniform, but the sources of law were diverse. Different laws applied to different estates, and the estates held distinct privileges. A nobleman or cleric could not be sentenced by an ordinary court. One set of laws governed the conduct of the merchants, another governed the feudal system, and the church was governed by its own laws. The application of canon law, which originated in the church, was more widespread than in modern times.[6] The expressions of these rights varied by country. For instance, in Sweden, the right to conduct international trade was subject to licensing and typically only given to burghers. In some countries, non-nobles were legally prohibited from wearing clothing that was considered too luxurious bysumptuary laws.
Legislative bodies or advisory bodies to amonarch were traditionally grouped along lines of these estates, with the monarch above all three estates. Meetings of the estates of the realm became early legislative and judicialparliaments. Monarchs often sought to legitimize their power by requiring oaths of fealty from the estates. Today, in most countries, the estates have lost all their legal privileges, and are mainly of historical interest. The nobility may be an exception, for instance due to legislation againstfalse titles of nobility.
One of the earliest political pamphlets to address these ideas was called "What Is the Third Estate?" (French:Qu'est-ce que le tiers-état?) It was written byAbbé Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès in January 1789, shortly before the start of the French Revolution.
The hereditary status of the estates had a precursor in EmperorDiocletian's reforms in the 3rd century, where Diocletian made certain "essential" occupations hereditary. Peasants became tied to their land, and sons of soldiers were forcibly conscripted to the army. Essential occupations included also bakers, armorers, tenant farmers and members of town councils. This significantly restricted social mobility.[7] In essence, by establishing hereditary occupations, which later became the estates of the realm of medieval Europe, Diocletian laid the foundation for feudalism, the political system that would reign over Europe for the following thousand years.[8] EmperorConstantine further entrenched these policies and widened their application in the 4th century.
After the fall of theWestern Roman Empire, numerous geographic and ethnic kingdoms developed among the endemic peoples of Europe, affecting their day-to-day secular lives; along with those, the growing influence of theCatholic Church and itsPapacy affected the ethical, moral and religious lives and decisions of all. This led to mutual dependency between the secular and religious powers for guidance and protection, but over time and with the growing power of the kingdoms, competing secular realities increasingly diverged from religious idealism and Church decisions.
The new lords of the land identified themselves primarily as warriors, but because new technologies of warfare were expensive, and the fighting men required substantial material resources and considerable leisure to train, these needs had to be filled. The economic and political transformation of the countryside in the period were filled by a large growth in population, agricultural production, technological innovations and urban centers; movements of reform and renewal attempted to sharpen the distinction between clerical and lay status, and power, recognized by the Church also had their effect.
In his bookThe Three Orders: Feudal Society Imagined, the FrenchmedievalistGeorges Duby has shown that in the period 1023–1025 the first theorist who justified the division of European society into the three estates of the realm wasGerard of Florennes, thebishop of Cambrai.[9]
As a result of theInvestiture Controversy of the late 11th and early 12th centuries, the powerful office ofHoly Roman Emperor lost much of its religious character and retained a more nominal universal preeminence over other rulers, though it varied. The struggle over investiture and the reform movement also legitimized all secular authorities, partly on the grounds of their obligation to enforce discipline.[10]
In the 11th and 12th centuries, thinkers argued that human society consisted of three orders: those who pray, those who fight, and those who labour. The structure of the first order, the clergy, was in place by 1200 and remained singly intact until thereligious reformations of the 16th century. The second order, those who fight, was the rank of the politically powerful, ambitious, and dangerous. Kings took pains to ensure that it did not resist their authority. The general category of those who labour (specifically, those who were not knightly warriors or nobles) diversified rapidly after the 11th century into the lively and energetic worlds of peasants, skilled artisans, merchants, financiers, lay professionals, and entrepreneurs, which together drove the European economy to its greatest achievements.[11]
By the 12th century, most European political thinkers agreed that monarchy was the ideal form of governance. This was because it imitated on earth the model set by God for the universe; it was the form of government of theancient Hebrews and the Christian Biblical basis, the later Roman Empire, and also the peoples who succeeded Rome after the 4th century.[10]
France under theAncien Régime (before theFrench Revolution) divided society into three estates: the First Estate (clergy); the Second Estate (nobility); and the Third Estate (commoners). The king was not part of any estate.
The First Estate comprised the entireclergy and the religious orders, traditionally divided into "higher" and "lower" clergy. Although there was no formally recognized demarcation between the two categories, the upper clergy were, effectively, clerical nobility, from Second Estate families. In the time of Louis XVI, every bishop in France was a nobleman, a situation that had not existed before the 18th century.[12]
The "lower clergy" (about equally divided between parish priests, monks, and nuns) constituted about 90 percent of the First Estate, which in 1789 numbered around 130,000 (about 0.5% of the population).[citation needed]
The Second Estate (deuxieme état) was theFrench nobility and (technically, though not in common use)royalty, other than themonarch himself, who stood outside of the system of estates.
The Second Estate is traditionally divided intonoblesse d'épée ("nobility of the sword"), andnoblesse de robe ("nobility of the robe"), the magisterial class that administered royal justice and civil government.
The Second Estate constituted approximately 1.5% of France's population.[citation needed] Under theancien régime ("old rule/old government", i.e. before the revolution), the Second Estate were exempt from thecorvée royale (forced labor on the roads) and from most other forms of taxation such as thegabelle (salt tax), and most important, thetaille (France's oldest form of direct taxation). This exemption from paying taxes was a major reason for their opposition to political reform.
 |
| Ancien Régime |
|---|
| Structure |
The Third Estate (Tiers état) comprised all of those who were not members of either of the above, and can be divided into two groups, urban and rural, together making up over 98% of France's population.[13] The urban included wage-labourers. The rural includedfree peasants (who owned their own land and could be prosperous) andvilleins (serfs, or peasants working on a noble's land). The free peasants paid disproportionately high taxes compared to the other Estates and were unhappy because they wanted more rights. In addition, the First and Second Estates relied on the labour of the Third, which made the latter's inferior status all the more glaring.
There were an estimated 27 millionpaysans in the Third Estate when the French Revolution started.
They had a hard life of physical labour and food shortages.[14] Most people were born in this group, and most remained in it for their entire lives. It was extremely rare for people of thisascribed status to become part of another estate; those who did were usually being rewarded for extraordinary bravery in battle, or entering religious life.[15] A few commoners were able to marry into the Second Estate, but this was a rare occurrence.[15]
The Estates General (not to be confused with a "class of citizen") was a general citizens' assembly that was first called byPhilip IV in 1302 and then met intermittently at the request of the King until 1614; after that, it was not called again for over 170 years.
In the period leading up to theEstates General of 1789, France was in the grip of an unmanageable public debt.[16][17] In May 1776, finance ministerTurgot was dismissed, after failing to enact reforms. The next year,Jacques Necker, a foreigner, was appointedController-General of Finances. (He could not officially be made the finance minister because he was a Protestant.)[18] Drastic inflation and simultaneous scarcity of food created a major famine in the winter of 1788–89. This led to widespread discontent, and produced a group of Third Estate representatives (612 exactly) pressing a comparatively radical set of reforms, much of it in alignment with the goals of acting finance minister Jacques Necker, but very much against the wishes ofLouis XVI's court and many of the hereditary nobles who were his Second Estate allies (allies at least to the extent that they were against being taxed themselves and in favour of maintaining high taxation for commoners).
Louis XVI called a meeting of the Estates General to deal with the economic problems and quell the growing discontent, but when he could not persuade them to rubber-stamp his 'ideal program', he sought to dissolve the assembly and take legislation into his own hands. However, the Third Estate held out for their right to representation. The lower clergy (and some nobles and upper clergy) eventually sided with the Third Estate, and the King was forced to yield. Thus, the 1789 Estates General meeting became an invitation to revolution.
By June, when continued impasses led to further deterioration in relations, the Estates General was reconstituted in a different form, first as theNational Assembly (June 17, 1789), seeking a solution independent of the King's management. (The Estates General, under that name and directed by the King, did continue to meet occasionally.) These independently-organized meetings are now seen as theepoch event of theFrench Revolution, during which – after several more weeks of civil unrest – the body assumed a new status as a revolutionary legislature, theNational Constituent Assembly (July 9, 1789).[19][full citation needed]
This unitary body of former representatives of the three estates began governing, along with an emergency committee, in the power vacuum after theBourbon monarchyfled from Paris. Among the Assembly wasMaximilien Robespierre, an influential president of theJacobins who would years later become instrumental in the turbulent period of violence and political upheaval in France known as theReign of Terror (5 September 1793 – 28 July 1794).[19]
| This sectiondoes notcite anysources. Please helpimprove this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved.(October 2020) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Whilst the estates were never formulated in a way that prevented social mobility, the English (subsequently the British) parliament was formed along the classic estate lines, being composed of the "Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons". The tradition where the Lords Spiritual and Temporal sat separately from the Commons began during the reign ofEdward III in the 14th century.
Notwithstanding theHouse of Lords Act 1999, the British Parliament still recognises the existence of the three estates: the Commons in the House of Commons, the nobility (Lords Temporal) in the House of Lords, and the clergy in the form of the Church of England bishops also entitled to sit in the upper House as theLords Spiritual.
The members of the Parliament ofScotland were collectively referred to as theThree Estates (Older Scots: Thre Estaitis), also known from 1290 as the community of the realm (Latin:communitas regni) ,[20] and until 1690 composed of:
The First Estate was overthrown during theGlorious Revolution and the accession ofWilliam III.[21] The Second Estate was then split into two to retain the division into three.
Ashire commissioner was the closest equivalent of theEnglish office ofMember of Parliament, namely acommoner or member of the lower nobility. Because the Parliament of Scotland was unicameral, all members sat in the samechamber, as opposed to the separate EnglishHouse of Lords andHouse of Commons.
The parliament also haduniversity constituencies (seeAncient universities of Scotland). The system was also adopted by theParliament of England whenJames VI ascended to theEnglish throne. It was believed that the universities were affected by the decisions of Parliament and ought therefore to have representation in it. This continued in theParliament of Great Britain after1707 and theParliament of the United Kingdom until 1950.[22]
After the 12th-centuryNorman invasion of Ireland, administration of the Anglo-NormanLordship of Ireland was modelled on that of theKingdom of England. As in England, the Parliament of Ireland evolved out of theMagnum Concilium "great council" summoned by thechief governor of Ireland, attended by the council (curia regis), magnates (feudal lords), and prelates (bishops andabbots). Membership was based onfealty to the king, and the preservation of theking's peace, and so the fluctuating number of autonomous IrishGaelic kings were outside of the system; they had their own localbrehon law taxation arrangements. Elected representatives are first attested in 1297 and continually from the later 14th century. In 1297, counties were first represented by electedknights of the shire (sheriffs had previously represented them). In 1299, towns were represented. From the 14th century, a distinction from the English parliament was that deliberations on church funding were held in Parliament rather than inConvocation. The separation of theIrish House of Lords from the electedIrish House of Commons had developed by the fifteenth century. The clericalproctors elected by the lower clergy of each diocese formed a separate house or estate until 1537, when they were expelled for their opposition to theIrish Reformation.[23] The Parliament of Ireland was dissolved after theAct of Union 1800, and instead Ireland was joined to theKingdom of Great Britain to form theUnited Kingdom; 100 Irish MPs instead represented the Third Estate in theHouse of Commons in London, while a selection of hereditary peers (typically about 28representative peers) represented the Irish nobility in theHouse of Lords. In addition, four seats asLords Spiritual were reserved forChurch of Ireland clergy: onearchbishop and three bishops at a time, alternating place after eachlegislative session. After thedisestablishment of the Church of Ireland in 1871, no more seats were created for Irish bishops.[24]
The Estates inSweden (includingFinland) and later also Russia'sGrand Duchy of Finland were the two higher estates,nobility andclergy, and the two lower estates,burghers and land-owningpeasants. Each were free men, and had specific rights and responsibilities, and the right to send representatives to theRiksdag of the Estates. The Riksdag, and later theDiet of Finland wastetracameral: at the Riksdag, each Estate voted as a single body. Since early 18th century, a bill needed the approval of at least three Estates to pass, and constitutional amendments required the approval of all Estates. Prior to the 18th century, the King had the right to cast a deciding vote if the Estates were split evenly.
After Russia's conquest of Finland in 1809, the estates in Finland swore an oath to the Emperor in theDiet of Porvoo. AFinnish House of Nobility was codified in 1818 in accordance with the old Swedish law of 1723. However, after the Diet of Porvoo, theDiet of Finland was reconvened only in 1863. In the meantime, for a period of 54 years, the country was governed only administratively.
There was also a population outside the estates. Unlike in other areas, people had no "default" estate, and were not peasants unless they came from a land-owner's family. A summary of this division is:
In Sweden, the Riksdag of the Estates existed until it was replaced with a bicameral Riksdag in 1866, which gave political rights to anyone with a certain income or property. Nevertheless, many of the leading politicians of the 19th century continued to be drawn from the old estates, in that they were either noblemen themselves, or represented agricultural and urban interests. Ennoblements continued even after the estates had lost their political importance, with the lastennoblement of explorerSven Hedin taking place in 1902; this practice was formally abolished with the adoption of the newConstitution January 1, 1975, while the status of theHouse of Nobility continued to be regulated in law until 2003.
In Finland, this legal division existed until 1906, still drawing on the Swedish constitution of 1772. However, at the start of the 20th century most of the population did not belong to any Estate and had no political representation. A particularly large class were the rent farmers, who did not own the land they cultivated but had to work in the land-owner's farm to pay their rent (unlike Russia, there were no slaves orserfs.) Furthermore, the industrial workers living in the city were not represented by the four-estate system.
The political system was reformed as a result of theFinnish general strike of 1905, with the last Diet instituting a new constitutional law to create themodern parliamentary system, ending the political privileges of the estates. The post-independence constitution of 1919 forbade ennoblement, and all tax privileges were abolished in 1920. The privileges of the estates were officially and finally abolished in 1995,[26] although in legal practice, the privileges had long been unenforceable. As in Sweden, the nobility has not been officially abolished and records of nobility are still voluntarily maintained by theFinnish House of Nobility.
In Finland, it is still illegal and punishable by jail time (up to one year) to defraud into marriage by declaring a false name or estate (Rikoslaki 18 luku § 1/Strafflagen 18 kap. § 1).
TheLow Countries, which until the late sixteenth century consisted of several counties, prince bishoprics, duchies etc. in the area that is now modernBelgium,Luxembourg and theNetherlands, had no States General until 1464, whenDuke Philip of Burgundy assembled the first States General inBruges. Later in the 15th and 16th centuries,Brussels became the place where the States General assembled. On these occasions, deputies from the States of the various provinces (as the counties, prince-bishoprics and duchies were called) asked for more liberties. For this reason, the States General were not assembled very often.
As a consequence of theUnion of Utrecht in 1579 and the events that followed afterwards, the States General declared that they no longer obeyedKing Philip II of Spain, who was alsooverlord of the Netherlands. After the reconquest of thesouthern Netherlands (roughly Belgium and Luxemburg), the States General of the Dutch Republic first assembled permanently inMiddelburg, and inThe Hague from 1585 onward. Without a king to rule the country, the States General became thesovereign power. It was the level of government where all things were dealt with that were of concern to all the seven provinces that became part of theRepublic of the United Netherlands.
During that time, the States General were formed by representatives of the States (i.e. provincial parliaments) of the seven provinces. In each States (aplurale tantum) sat representatives of the nobility and the cities (the clergy were no longer represented; inFriesland the peasants were indirectly represented by theGrietmannen).
In the Southern Netherlands, the last meetings of the States General loyal to the Habsburgs took place in theEstates General of 1600 and theEstates General of 1632.
As a government, the States General of the Dutch Republic were abolished in 1795. A new parliament was created, calledNationale Vergadering (National Assembly). It no longer consisted of representatives of the States, let alone the Estates: all men were considered equal under the 1798 Constitution. Eventually, the Netherlands became part of the French Empire underNapoleon (1810: La Hollande est reunie à l'Empire).
After regaining independence in November 1813, the name "States General" was resurrected for a legislature constituted in 1814 and elected by theStates-Provincial. In 1815, when the Netherlands were united with Belgium and Luxemburg, the States General were divided into two chambers: the First Chamber and the Second Chamber. The members of the First Chamber were appointed for life by the King, while the members of the Second Chamber were elected by the members of the States Provincial. The States General resided in The Hague and Brussels in alternate years until 1830, when, as a result of theBelgian Revolution, The Hague became once again the sole residence of the States General, Brussels instead hosting the newly foundedBelgian Parliament.
From 1848 on, the Dutch Constitution provides that members of the Second Chamber be elected by the people (at first only by a limited portion of the male population; universal male and female suffrage exists since 1919), while the members of the First Chamber are chosen by the members of the States Provincial. As a result, the Second Chamber became the most important. The First Chamber is also called Senate. This however, is not a term used in the Constitution.
Occasionally, the First and Second Chamber meet in aVerenigde Vergadering (Joint Session), for instance onPrinsjesdag, the annual opening of the parliamentary year, and when a new king isinaugurated.
TheHoly Roman Empire had theImperial Diet (Reichstag). The clergy was represented by the independentprince-bishops, prince-archbishops andprince-abbots of the manymonasteries. The nobility consisted of independent aristocratic rulers: secularprince-electors, kings, dukes, margraves, counts and others. Burghers consisted of representatives of the independentimperial cities. Many peoples whose territories within the Holy Roman Empire had been independent for centuries had no representatives in the Imperial Diet, and this included theImperial Knights and independent villages. The power of the Imperial Diet was limited, despite efforts of centralization.
Large realms of the nobility or clergy had estates of their own that could wield great power in local affairs. Power struggles between ruler and estates were comparable to similar events in the history of the British and French parliaments.
TheSwabian League, a significant regional power in its part of Germany during the 15th Century, also had its own kind of Estates, a governing Federal Council comprising three Colleges: those of Princes, Cities, and Knights.
In the lateRussian Empire, the estates were calledsosloviyes. The four major estates were: nobility (dvoryanstvo),clergy, rural dwellers, and urban dwellers, with a more detailed stratification therein. The division in estates was of mixed nature: traditional, occupational, as well as formal: for example, voting inDuma was carried out by estates.Russian Empire Census recorded the reported estate of a person.
In theMedievalKingdom of Portugal, the"Cortes" was an assembly of representatives of the estates of the realm – thenobility,clergy andbourgeoisie. It was called and dismissed by theKing of Portugal at will, at a place of his choosing.[27] Cortes which brought all three estates together are sometimes distinguished as"Cortes-Gerais" (General Courts), in contrast to smaller assemblies which brought only one or two estates, to negotiate a specific point relevant only to them.[28]
TheParliament of Catalonia was first established in 1283 as theCatalan Courts (Catalan:Corts Catalanes), according to American historianThomas Bisson, and it has been considered by several historians as a model of medievalparliament. For instance, English historian of constitutionalismCharles Howard McIlwain wrote that the General Court of Catalonia, during the 14th century, had a more defined organization and met more regularly than the parliaments of England or France.[29]
The roots of the parliament institution inCatalonia are in the Peace and Truce Assemblies (assemblees de pau i treva) that started in the 11th century.The members of the Catalan Courts were organized in the Three Estates (Catalan:Tres Estats orTres Braços):
The parliamentary institution was abolished in 1716, together with the rest of institutions of thePrincipality of Catalonia, after theWar of the Spanish Succession.
{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)
Media related toEstates of the realm at Wikimedia Commons
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
| Other | |
